from the well,-look-at-that dept

Oh, that wacky NSA. Late on Tuesday, the WSJ revealed some new info about the NSA. A lot of it had actually been covered elsewhere before, but they got some confirmations, and some new tidbits of information, such as spying on all emails in Salt Lake City during the Olympics, and the fact that the massive violations which led to the FISC ruling about how the NSA violated the 4th Amendment went on for far longer than most people had expected.

Of course, some more details of that FISC ruling were revealed late on Wednesday. Right before the documents were released, the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, apparently held an "on background" (i.e., not for quotations) press call, which, according to various reports, involved a refusal to answer any questions about the WSJ article, and an insistence that all questions had to be about the documents ODNI was declassifying, even though none of them had yet been released.

However, while everyone was focusing on those documents (which were released moments later), the NSA did push out a laughable "response" to the WSJ article, in which they don't deny any of the major claims -- such as the spying on every email during the Olympics -- but rather take issue with the opening ("the lede," as they say) of the WSJ article, which talked about how the NSA "has the capacity to reach roughly 75% of all U.S. Internet traffic." Admittedly, that 75% number was in the headline of the WSJ piece, and was what many focused on. We didn't put as much emphasis on it, because having the capability to see that much is different than actually doing so and the full article did make clear that the NSA doesn't actually sift through that much (except, you know, during the Olympics).

So, the NSA's response mostly focuses on how unfair that 75% number is:

The reports leave readers with the impression that NSA is sifting through as much as 75% of the United States' online communications, which is simply not true.

Well... there's truth and then there's "truth." And the article does make it pretty clear that the NSA isn't sifting through all of that, but rather the telcos who were "compelled" to assist the NSA, who then pass along chunks of content that trigger certain interest.

But, really, this is the NSA we're talking about. The very same NSA who has basically made sure that at nearly every public appearance it utters claims that are either outright false -- sorry, "least untruthful," -- or, more accurately uses exceptionally carefully worded phrases to say something that might technically be true, while giving the public the impression of something entirely different. Sometimes this involves redefining words like "relevant" and "target." Sometimes this means using weasel phrases like "under this program" (leaving out the obligatory "but not under others.") The NSA spends an awful lot of time deliberately saying things designed to "leave the public with the impression" of something that is untrue.

So I don't see how it gets to complain if the WSJ may have done the same thing with its headline and opening. At least with the WSJ, if you read the article, you get much more of the full picture. When the NSA offers its misleading bullshit, the full story is often kept shrouded in secrecy.

These bills would go so far to protect copyright that they would strangle the Internet with regulation. The Web would be transformed from a permissive technology where innovation is welcome to one where websites are shut down first, questions asked later.

Crovitz summarizes the situation by highlighting how frequently the entertainment industry has cried wolf in the past:

Hollywood is playing to stereotype, hoping to suppress technology as it did in 1982, when the late industry lobbyist Jack Valenti said the invention of the VCR was to the "American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler was to the woman home alone." Hollywood has since also fought DVD players, DVRs and MP3 players.

Technology makes many things possible, good and bad. One thing that seems a mission impossible is having laws keep up with the pace of change on the Internet. Hollywood's effort to create a different story line for the future of the Web is a horror show. Lawmakers should walk out.

While not the official position of the WSJ, it's good to see more mainstream pieces calling out the problems with SOPA and PIPA. It's really kind of amazing. The supporters of these bills really seemed to think they'd be approved without any real pushback. They're still trying to make such claims in our comments. The reality is that there's a growing public realization that a few big businesses who don't want to adapt are trying to saddle the innovation industry with regulations to slow down the pace of innovation. That goes against what most people want. Sooner or later, Congress is going to realize that you can't just vote for the bills that get the most lobbying dollars... if you won't be able to get the votes of your constituents when election season rolls around.

from the that's-not-good dept

With all the focus on Wikileaks recently, and the question of whether it is or is not "press" (not that it actually matters), one point that I've heard more than a few people raise is: why didn't any of the big news organizations create Wikileaks? It seems like a no-brainer, but they didn't. Of course, with the attacks on Wikileaks itself (and it is an organization with flaws, clearly), we've seen a number of alternative platforms for leaking information spring up, and now The Wall Street Journal has entered the game with a platform it's calling SafeHouse.

Now, it's great that the Wall Street Journal has decided to get into the game, and one would hope that other newspapers will set up similar secure and protected dropboxes for information. But... there are some serious problems with the WSJ's implementation. First of all, the terms of service basically say that you shouldn't expect them to protect your anonymity at all:

"Except when we have a separately negotiated confidentiality agreementů we reserve the right to disclose any information about you to law enforcement authorities or to a requesting third party, without notice, in order to comply with any applicable laws and/or requests under legal process, to operate our systems properly, to protect the property or rights of Dow Jones or any affiliated companies, and to safeguard the interests of others."

In other words, if you leak to the WSJ and the government wants to know who you are, the WSJ is going to tell the government. Apparently, the WSJ doesn't think too highly of the concept of journalistic shields for sources.

Separately, researchers, including Jacob Appelbaum are pointing to numerous security flaws in Safehouse's implementation that could also reveal someone's identity, despite promises of anonymity.

Hopefully, the WSJ is willing to admit that it hadn't necessarily thought through all the implications, and will fix these problems quickly.

from the sounds-like-it dept

With Rupert Murdoch's recent talk about removing his sites from Google, some said that if you understood his comments in context, he was really talking more about copying the WSJ's "leaky" paywall strategy -- which lets users see full articles if they visit via Google. Of course, in that very interview, he appeared to not know how that leaky paywall works, claiming that it took people to a landing page with a couple of paragraphs rather than the full story. That's not true. It does that if you're linked from most other sites. But people who come via Google (or, I believe, Digg) get the full story automatically. The idea, from SEO experts, was to actually help Google drive more traffic.

Of course, that was before Murdoch suddenly decided that all this free promotion was "parasiting" his works (despite the fact that many of his own properties do the same thing. However, it looks like News Corp. may actually be considering ending the "leaky" part of its paywall, with the company's COO, Chase Carey, saying that the idea makes no sense:

"I don't think it makes sense... We don't want people going though a backdoor, or other channels..."

And now we learn how little the folks at News Corp. seem to understand the internet and the fundamental way that people want to interact with news these days. It's not just about sitting and receiving the end product. It's about being a part of the process -- and that includes sharing and spreading the news -- for free -- to others. Mark Cuban thinks (incorrectly, in my opinion) that Murdoch understands the value of people passing around links, which is why he says he wants to opt-out of Google (because search traffic isn't as valuable as traffic from Twitter or Facebook). But locking up all that content actually harms that viral-link value. People aren't going to share or spread a link if they know others can't use it. For years, for example, we've used those "backdoors" (i.e., Google News) which Carey bemoans to read stories in the WSJ that we post here. If they stop allowing that, then I won't read the WSJ any more, and the community of readers and commenters here will never hear from the WSJ again. It's difficult to see how that's a better option.

Amusingly, the first time that we ever wrote about this growing concept that people today want to "spread the news" and "share the news" more than they just want to receive the news was about five years ago -- before the WSJ had put up its leaky paywall. The point of that post was to note just how far the WSJ had fallen out of the conversation on news media -- since no one could send around a link to discuss things. Putting those "backdoors" into the paywall, at the very least, brought the WSJ somewhat back into the conversation. Blocking it now would make the Journal irrelevant again. It's difficult to see how that's a smart strategy at all.

from the or-does-competition-work? dept

A month and a half ago, Walt Mossberg wrote up an article saying that government intervention was needed to get US mobile phone operators to open up their networks. I took issue with that notion, noting that it wasn't as simple as Mossberg made out, and there wasn't enough evidence that government intervention was needed or that it would help. In fact, we pointed out that competitive pressures were already pushing mobile operators, with the exception of Verizon Wireless, away from the walled garden model -- and while they hadn't adopted truly open models, it was likely to come with time and increased competition. And, in fact, as we noted last week, Verizon Wireless has responded to these competitive pressures by promising to open up (the reality of that promise remains to be seen).

With that in mind, I was a little disappointed to read Mossberg's take on Verizon Wireless' move. Mossberg cautiously commends Verizon Wireless, withholding full judgment until all the details are out -- which makes complete sense, and is a position I agree with. However, Mossberg fails to note that this (and other such moves) have all happened due to competitive pressures, rather than government fiat, and doesn't retract his call for government intervention. While it absolutely is true that the mobile operators remain too closed these days (even once Verizon Wireless details its plans), what we're seeing is how market pressures tend to drive markets toward openness in much more natural ways than by involving government intervention. The second the government got involved, lobbyists from the mobile operators would make sure that huge loopholes were slipped in that would likely make things worse for consumers, not better. Like Mossberg and many others, I'm frustrated and annoyed by the limitations put on mobile phone systems by operators, but I'm confident that pressure from within the industry and from outside of it (see the recent work of Apple and Google for a start) will eventually force the operators to open up -- and it won't take long for them to realize that the end result is better for everyone, including the operators themselves.

from the is-it-really-necessary? dept

Walt Mossberg has been talking about this for a while, but his latest column follows a few other recent calls for the government to step in and mandate more open wireless networks. The idea is that mobile networks should be more like the wider internet. That is, when you buy a computer, you don't buy one locked to a particular ISP, or with only what that ISP wants you to access included. That openness has resulted in tremendous innovation in the PC, internet and software worlds -- and it's quite likely that a similar openness would lead to much more innovation in the mobile space as well. The problem, though, is that it's really not that simple.

As we've discussed before there are a lot of complicating factors here, and perhaps the biggest issue is that it's unclear that government regulation is really necessary. Early on, all the mobile operators tried to focus on completely walled gardens, not allowing users to access the wider internet. However, most operators have realized that was a mistake and have pulled away from that model (and benefited for it). There will be a greater and greater realization that this actually makes the most sense for mobile operators anyway, and there's no reason to think that it should require immediate government assistance. We're already seeing companies like Google pressure the market to be more open and certainly there's plenty of consumer demand there. That means this is really more of an opportunity for mobile operators to embrace this kind of model than one that requires gov't intervention. In the immediate future, there are technical limitations, but if you follow the direction that next generation wireless networks are taking, it should become less and less of an issue over time. On the flip side, if we do bring the government in to mandate openness, you risk a situation where a bunch of politicians without an understanding of either the technologies or the trends are pressured to make laws that will eventually have a detrimental effect (and, don't kid yourselves, the telco lobby will make sure those laws favor the telcos in the long run). Since I agree with Mossberg and many others that there could be much more innovation by embracing openness, I would like to see it happen. But I'm optimistic enough to recognize that market pressures should help drive us there without risky gov't intervention. The real breakthrough will be when one of the mobile operators steps forward and embraces these concepts on its own.